http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/companies/29google.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Big is not bad without bad acts. So this is the key fact dispelling any real argument:
None of the investigations take aim at Google’s core advertising business. And unlike other technology giants in years past, Google has not been accused of anticompetitive tactics. But the investigations and carping from competitors and critics have Google fighting to dispel the notion that it has a lock on its market, even as it increases its share of search and online advertising... Eyes are rolling, especially in reaction to the idea that Google is a relatively small player in a giant market. “They describe where they are in a market under a kind of a fairy-tale spun gloss that doesn’t reflect their dominance of key sectors,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. “Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.”
Hance, contrary to what Jeff C. suggests above, "dominance of key sectors" doesn't matter at all unless — which is something no one even whispers — Google achieved that dominance through exclusionary practices. They did not. Inventing a better mouse trap,in this case search algorithms, is precisely what the U.S. antitrust laws protect because as a policy matter it is what we want all companies, even big companies, to do.
